---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Petter Rindforth <petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu>
Date: Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 9:12 AM
Subject: Re: Fwd: [council] GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion paper
To: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com>
Cc: "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin@verisign.com>
From: Petter Rindforth <petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu>
Date: Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 9:12 AM
Subject: Re: Fwd: [council] GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion paper
To: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com>
Cc: "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin@verisign.com>
Dear Heather,
Below please see my comments and suggestions:
4.1 Working Group Dynamics
– Incremental Improvements
#1. Terms of participation
for WG members
Good suggestion. Should however also include an initial draft timeline and clear topics with basic timelines for each decisions, in order for potential WG members to make the right decision if they can keep the active work and timelines.
Good suggestion. Should however also include an initial draft timeline and clear topics with basic timelines for each decisions, in order for potential WG members to make the right decision if they can keep the active work and timelines.
#2. Consider alternatives
to open WG model
Can work, depending on the topic. Especially if the topic is rather focused on solving a problem that is identified by specific groups of interest rather than for Internet users in general.
Can work, depending on the topic. Especially if the topic is rather focused on solving a problem that is identified by specific groups of interest rather than for Internet users in general.
#3. Limitations to joining
of new members after a certain time
I agree with the suggested text. However, it should include observers that after a while decide to become active/full members.
I agree with the suggested text. However, it should include observers that after a while decide to become active/full members.
This is to avoid already
discussed and decided topics to be re-opened and thereby also unnecessary extension
of the WG time.
4.2 WG Leadership –
Incremental Improvements
#4. Capture vs. Consensus
Playbook
If possible, the recommendation should also involve inactive full members, that have not participated at WG meetings or online, and for some reason suddenly decides to activate. It should be clear in the policy that re-opening a topic that the WG has formally closed or decided upon, needs some kind of majority decision in the WG, and/or recommendations from the GNSO Council.
If possible, the recommendation should also involve inactive full members, that have not participated at WG meetings or online, and for some reason suddenly decides to activate. It should be clear in the policy that re-opening a topic that the WG has formally closed or decided upon, needs some kind of majority decision in the WG, and/or recommendations from the GNSO Council.
#5. Active role for and
clear description of Council liaison to PDP WGs
Agree with the recommendation. If possible, the Council liaison should participate in the preparatory WG Chair meetings, as well as at the WG meetings as such. One role of the Council liaison should be to remind all about the schedule and timelines.
Agree with the recommendation. If possible, the Council liaison should participate in the preparatory WG Chair meetings, as well as at the WG meetings as such. One role of the Council liaison should be to remind all about the schedule and timelines.
#6. Document expectations
for WG leaders that outlines role & responsibilities as well as minimum
skills / expertise required
Depends on the topic of the WG. My suggestion is to create some simple general description and then one more specific for each new WG.
Depends on the topic of the WG. My suggestion is to create some simple general description and then one more specific for each new WG.
4.3 Complexity of Subject
Matter – Incremental Improvements
#7. Creation of Cooperative Teams
The risk with this suggestion is that some WG members may find it more easier to be less active and rely upon the support of and reports from Cooperative Teams. Better to use traditional subgroups for different kind of topics.
The risk with this suggestion is that some WG members may find it more easier to be less active and rely upon the support of and reports from Cooperative Teams. Better to use traditional subgroups for different kind of topics.
#8. PDP Plenary or Model PDP
PDP plenary is in fact generally recommendable for PDPs that have worked for some time, in order to summarize the work and result. However, as to newcomers, there should be a specific due date when they have to decided whether or not to active members – again, in order to avoid extension of the WG timeline.
PDP plenary is in fact generally recommendable for PDPs that have worked for some time, in order to summarize the work and result. However, as to newcomers, there should be a specific due date when they have to decided whether or not to active members – again, in order to avoid extension of the WG timeline.
4.4 Consensus Building – Incremental Improvements
#9. Provide further
guidance for sections 3.6 (Standard Methodology for decision making)
“Ensure there is clarity around how consensus is established and what tools can be used in that regard”. This is indeed needed! And, it should be clear that informal discussions by e-mail among WG members can never be recorded as consensus votes.
“Ensure there is clarity around how consensus is established and what tools can be used in that regard”. This is indeed needed! And, it should be clear that informal discussions by e-mail among WG members can never be recorded as consensus votes.
As to 3.7 cases: It should
be clear that this can not be used by a WG member to stop the process and work
of the WG. A 3.7 appeal process has to go on side by side with the WG normal
meetings.
#10. Document positions at the outset
This recommendation should also include WG members, and give the WG chairs a possibility to refer to clear guidelines that there is a specific time limit on each call for each WG member to speak (such as max 5 min’s) if they are not formally asked to make a presentation on the topic.
This recommendation should also include WG members, and give the WG chairs a possibility to refer to clear guidelines that there is a specific time limit on each call for each WG member to speak (such as max 5 min’s) if they are not formally asked to make a presentation on the topic.
4.5 Role of Council as
Manager of the PDP – Incremental Improvements
#11. Enforce deadlines and
ensure bite size pieces
Agree!
Agree!
#12. Notification to
Council of changes in work plan
Good suggestion.
Good suggestion.
#13. Review of Chair(s)
Well, it is in fact even more difficult to replace a WG member.
Well, it is in fact even more difficult to replace a WG member.
If #13 is introduced, there
should be a #13.b:
“The Council could run an anonymous survey amongst the PDP WG to obtain feedback on the WG members on a regular basis to facilitate their roles as positively active members of the PDP. Similarly, there is no process in place that allows a WG to challenge and/or replace their co-members.”
“The Council could run an anonymous survey amongst the PDP WG to obtain feedback on the WG members on a regular basis to facilitate their roles as positively active members of the PDP. Similarly, there is no process in place that allows a WG to challenge and/or replace their co-members.”
#14. Make better use of
existing flexibility in PDP to allow for data gathering, chartering and
termination when it is clear that no consensus can be achieved.
No objections to this.
#15. Independent conflict resolution
I agree with the suggestion to have “Council liaison to be proactive in identifying potential issues / challenges that may need mitigation and Council attention”.
I agree with the suggestion to have “Council liaison to be proactive in identifying potential issues / challenges that may need mitigation and Council attention”.
#16. Criteria for PDP WG Updates
Good suggestion.
Good suggestion.
#17. Resource reporting for PDP WGs
Must be done in
co-operation with ICANN staff.
Further general
suggestions:
- Have each agenda clear with a time at the end of each call to wrap up –
Decisions, Action Items, Requests
- Look
at time schedule on each meeting and keep it visible and online
- Clarify
when it is ok to vote on how to proceed vs. adopting group consensus
- If
a topic is divided into separate issues – avoid members going back to earlier
decisions and reopen
- Empower
Chairs and GNSO liaison to remove bad actors – those who malign, make things
personal, attack WG members in social media, etc
All the best,
Petter
Petter
--
Petter Rindforth, LL M
Fenix Legal KB
Stureplan 4c, 4tr
114 35 Stockholm
Sweden
Fax: +46(0)8-4631010
Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360
E-mail: petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu
NOTICE
This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed.
It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read,
copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains.
Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail.
Thank you
26 juli 2018 08:17:33 +02:00, skrev Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com>:
Dear Phil, Petter,I write on behalf of Council leadership to encourage you to contribute your thoughts to the PDP 3.0 project. Your experiences as co-chairs of the IGO/INGO Curative Rights PDP, and particular with the 3.7 appeal mechanism, are invaluable as we seek to improve upon the PDP WG Guidelines and seize upon existing flexibilities available to PDP leadership and working groups.In particular, if you spot anything missing in the recommendations in the attached PDP 3.0 report, or find recommendations that could be amended to better align with your experiences, it would be very helpful to hear from you, so that these things can be taken into account as the report is finalised.We welcome any comments from you, whether together or individually, and in any format that is easiest for you. Comments received by 15 August will be incorporated in the final version for consideration by the Council in its September meeting.With best wishes,Heather Forrest---------- Forwarded message ----------From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>Date: Sat, May 12, 2018 at 7:23 AMSubject: [council] GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion paperSending on behalf of the Council leadership
Dear colleagues,
Please find attached for your review the GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion paper. The Council leadership team has collaborated with staff in bringing all discussions and suggestions to date into one document for your and your respective communities’ consideration. We welcome input, particularly on section 4 – potential incremental improvements for consideration. In particular, which potential incremental improvements should be prioritized, are there any missing, are there additional implementation steps that should be considered? After receiving feedback, we hope to commence the development of an implementation plan proposing the when/how/who of implementing those incremental improvements agreed upon by the Council. To contribute to this next step in the improvements process we kindly request your feedback and/or that of your community by 8 June so that the Council can consider next steps during its meeting at ICANN62.
Best regards,
GNSO Council leadership team
Marika Konings
Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Email: marika.konings@icann.org
Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO
Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages.
_______________________________________________ council mailing list